Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3433/2021dismissed

Anantharaj v. The Inspector Of Police

2021-03-09Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.3433 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09/03/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD). No.3433 of 2021 Anantharaj ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State represented through The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

Crime No.412/2020.

... Respondent/ Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no. 412 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 353 and 379 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.412 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and others were said to have illegally transported river sand by using lorry. Hence, the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the occurrence said to have taken place on 12.11.2020 and for the past three months the respondent police is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.3433 of 2021 unable to apprehend the petitioner. Hence, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner is having two previous cases and one is under Section 302 of IPC. He further submitted that in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that in this case the defacto complainant is none other than the Village Administration Officer of Pullankudi and the petitioner herein and four others are hailing from Pullankudi Village. The defacto complainant is well aware about the name of the petitioner. On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant stopped the vehicle and asked the petitioner to get down from the lorry, at that time the petitioner and others pushed the defacto complainant, who is a public servant, taken the lorry. Hence, he opposed. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is a clear case of illegal transportation of river sand, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. sd/- 09/03/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIPATTINAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3433 of 2021 Date :09/03/2021 csg AE/JC/SAR-II (12/03/2021) 2P / 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2